How Valid is the PASS Theory and CAS?

Abstract

In this article I provide data that the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) has considerable validity, which is contrary to suggestions made by Kranzler and Keith. I take a broad data-driven approach to the examination of validity, rather than one limited to factor analysis as used by my colleagues. This article provides evidence that the interpretation of the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS Scales) described in the CAS Interpretive Handbook is well supported. For example, despite the attempt to reinterpret Planning test as Speed, data are summarized showing that CAS planning subtests involve strategy use and do not correlate with achievement the way tests of speed do. Moreover, I show from a theoretical perspective that tests of speed have to be different from those that involve strategy use. Also provided are data to show that the CAS predicts achievement better than any test of ability, that there is evidence that the CAS yields different profiles for children with ADHD and LD, and that PASS scores have relevance to intervention. These data, and others, demonstrate the substantial empirical support for the PASS theory and CAS, contrary to the arguments of Kranzler and Keith, which are based upon factor analysis.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.